В Thu, 14 Aug 2014 14:24:49 +0200 Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> пишет:
> On Sun, 27.07.14 20:04, Reindl Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) wrote: > > > but that still don't explain why "ExecStopPost=/sur/bin/true" or > > whatever "ExecStopPost" solves that and if it is not supported > > why "systemctl" don't return after the one and only process > > exited > > Well, this is a misunderstanding how ExecStop= and friends are supposed > to work. They are supposed to do what they did on sysvinit: > synchronously terminate a service. And not asynchronously do that. I have to ask again - why is forcing every package to re-implement busy loop waiting for process to exit better than doing this wait in one place - PID 1 - which is the most natural place to do it? > We > hence don't wait for anything else then, because what is left afterwards > must be left-over processes that ExecStop= and friends couldn't clean up > properly... > > Lennart > _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
